Zorkin Valery Dmitrievich was born on February 18, 1943 in the village of Konstantinovka, Primorsky Territory, into a military family. Russian.

In 1964 he graduated from the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University (MSU) with a degree in jurisprudence. In 1964-1967 he worked at the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University as a senior lecturer, in 1967-1979 - as an associate professor. In 1967 he defended his dissertation for the scientific degree candidate of legal sciences on the topic "B.N. Chicherin's views on the state and law", and in 1978 - a doctoral dissertation on the topic "Positivist theory of law in Russia (historical-critical research)".

In 1979-1986 - professor at the department of constitutional law and theory of state and law at the Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR. Since 1986 - Professor at the Department of State Legal Disciplines of the Higher Law Correspondence School of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs. In 1990-1991, he led a group of experts of the Constitutional Commission of the Congress of People's Deputies of Russia. He was a member of the CPSU from 1970 until its ban in August 1991.

On May 4, 1991, during the discussion of bills on the establishment of the post of President in Russia, he published an article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, “Presidential Power in Russia,” co-written with Yu. A. Ryzhov.

During the coup attempt in August 1991, on August 19, he signed a statement by a group of lawyers - members and experts of the Constitutional Commission about the unconstitutional coup d'etat committed by members of the State Emergency Committee.

At the V Congress of People's Deputies of Russia on October 29, 1991, at the proposal of the deputy group "Communists for Democracy", he was elected judge of the Constitutional Court of Russia. On November 1, at the first meeting of the court, he was elected its chairman by secret ballot for an unlimited term.

In March 1993, under his chairmanship, the court declared the presidential decree unconstitutional.

On October 6, 1993, Zorkin resigned from the post of Chairman of the Constitutional Court, remaining its member.

On December 1, the judges of the Constitutional Court suspended Zorkin's judicial powers on charges of participation in political activities, but on January 25, 1994 they decided to resume his powers.

In March 1994, Zorkin signed a statement by the organizing committee of the “Concord in the Name of Russia” movement (together with G. Zyuganov, A. Rutsky, A. Prokhanov, S. Glazyev, S. Govorukhin, A. Tuleev, etc.). With the resumption of work of the Constitutional Court, he stopped participating in political actions.

On February 14, 1995, he was included in the second chamber of the Constitutional Court. Member of the Commission for Improving the Structure of the Constitutional Court Apparatus and Personnel.

In the 1996 presidential elections, Zorkin's candidacy was nominated by two initiative groups of citizens, but after Zorkin declared that he did not intend to run for President, no signatures were collected in his support.

Hobbies include playing the piano and skiing. Loves animals.

Married. Wife Tamara Vasilievna - Candidate of Economic Sciences. Daughter Natalya (born in 1972) studies at the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University.

Zorkin, Valery

Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In November 1991, he was elected to this post for an unlimited term. Being a supporter of a presidential republic, he came into conflict with the president and declared Yeltsin’s decree on the dissolution of the Supreme Council in the fall of 1993 unconstitutional. After the October shooting of the White House, he resigned, and soon his membership in the Constitutional Court was terminated. In 1994, the powers of Judge Zorkin were restored. Zorkin twice, in 1994 and 1995, refused to nominate his candidacy for the presidency. In February 2003, he was re-elected as head of the Constitutional Court, and then re-elected in 2006, 2009 and 2012. Honored Lawyer of Russia, member of the Presidium of the Russian Lawyers Association, author of a number of monographs.

Valery Dmitrievich Zorkin was born on February 18, 1943 in the village of Konstantinovka, Primorsky Territory, into a military family. Soon his family moved to Moscow. After finishing school he served in the army. In 1964 he graduated from the Faculty of Law of Lomonosov Moscow State University with a degree in jurisprudence. In 1964-1967 he worked at the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University as a teacher, then as a senior teacher. He studied the history of legal doctrines, including early Christian ones.

In 1967, he defended his dissertation at Moscow State University for the degree of Candidate of Legal Sciences on the topic “B.N. Chicherin’s views on the state and law.” After his defense, he continued to work at Moscow State University (already as an assistant professor). He was involved in political movements; according to media reports, he paid special attention to the views of the Italian Renaissance thinker Nicolo Machiavelli. In 1970 he joined the CPSU (he remained a member of the party until its abolition in 1991).

From 1977 to 1979, Zorkin worked at the Institute of State and Law, where in 1978 he defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic “Positivist theory of law in Russia (historical-critical research).” According to Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Zorkin tried to defend this dissertation, devoted to criticism of the positivist theory of law (the same theory that underlay the practice of the USSR prosecutor in 1935-39 Andrei Vyshinsky and his followers) back in 1976 at Moscow State University, but defense he lacked one vote. The defense at the Institute of State and Law was successful, but relations with Moscow State University were spoiled, and Zorkin decided to leave the university.

The publication claimed that this is why in 1979-1986 (according to other sources, in 1980-1986) Zorkin became a professor at the department of constitutional law and theory of state and law at the Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR. In 1986, he received the position of professor at the department of state legal disciplines at the Higher Legal Correspondence School of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR.

In March 1990, Zorkin ran for people's deputies of the RSFSR in the Kalinin district of Moscow. Took third place - after democratic business executive Mikhail Bocharov and commander of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, General Yuri Shatalov.

Before the second round of elections, according to media reports, representatives from both sides came to Zorkin with a request for support. At the same time, Yevgeny Savostyanov, who was running for the Moscow Council (later the head of the Moscow department of the FSK, and then the deputy head of the presidential administration), came to Zorkin with a request for Bocharov’s support, and Gavriil Popov turned to Zorkin with a request for the support of Savostyanov himself. After this, Zorkin turned to his voters with a request to vote for Bocharov and Savostyanov. Both candidates he supported won the elections, and Zorkin, despite his communist views, became close to the Moscow democrats.

In 1990-1991, Zorkin led a group of experts of the Constitutional Commission of the Congress of People's Deputies of Russia (the commission itself was headed by Boris Yeltsin) and participated in the preparation of the draft of a new constitution for Russia. The press emphasized that Zorkin was almost the only serious and famous lawyer at that time who did not support USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev and agreed to write a new Russian constitution. As Zorkin later explained to journalists, the commission took the US political system as a basis, counting on a strong parliament (the lawyer even believed that parliament could approve all ministers).

Zorkin also defended the concept of a presidential republic in Russia before his colleagues on the commission and deputies of the Supreme Council. On May 4, 1991, during the period of discussion of bills on the establishment of the post of president in the RSFSR, Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article “Presidential Power in Russia,” written by Zorkin in collaboration with Yuri Ryzhov. In an article devoted to analyzing the shortcomings different types rule of law democratic state, it was directly stated that Russia should opt for a republic with strong presidential power.

Around the same time, Zorkin became a professor at the department of state and legal disciplines at the All-Union Correspondence School of Law of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs.

On August 19, 1991, during an attempt to seize power in the country by members of the State Emergency Committee, Zorkin signed a statement by a group of lawyers - members and experts of the Constitutional Commission - that the actions of the State Emergency Committee were an attempt at a coup. On the same day, the statement was broadcast by Western radio stations.

Partly as a result of the fact that he once again supported Yeltsin, at the V Congress of People's Deputies of Russia on October 29, 1991, Zorkin, at the proposal of the deputy group "Communists for Democracy" (and the media claimed that Yeltsin himself told the deputy groups who to nominate), was elected member of the Constitutional Court of Russia (the institution of the Constitutional Court itself in Russian Federation was established on December 15, 1990, and the law on it was adopted on July 12, 1991). 757 parliamentarians then voted for Zorkin's candidacy. On November 1 of the same year, at the first meeting of the Constitutional Court, Zorkin was elected chairman of the court by secret ballot for an unlimited term, becoming the first person to hold this position.

On October 30, 1991, the Constitutional Court began work and with its first decision, made in January 1992, it declared President Yeltsin’s decree on the merger of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and state security agencies unconstitutional. As Zorkin explained to reporters, if the president is elected by popular vote, this only gives him a mandate to power, but not an indulgence.

The most high-profile case of the Constitutional Court of the first composition was the so-called “CPSU case,” the consideration of which began on May 26, 1992 (communist deputies submitted to the court the question of the legality of Yeltsin’s decrees banning the CPSU and the Communist Party of the RSFSR, in response, democratic deputies led by Oleg Rumyantsev raised the question of the constitutionality of the CPSU). The case was completed on November 30, 1992 by a decision that allowed the grassroots structures of the Communist Party of the RSFSR to recreate the central leadership of the party. According to Zorkin, this process was “the first experience of political compromise in Russia.” It was precisely such a decision, as Zorkin argued, that the country needed at that time.

At the same time, the media noted that the trial, which actually summed up the Soviet period of the country’s development under the leadership of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)-CPSU, ended in nothing. The court recognized that the CPSU and the Communist Party of the RSFSR were not “parties” in the literal sense of the word, but did not decide to either ban or justify these organizations. The court also considered itself not to have the right to decide what and who belongs to the property of the CPSU, limiting itself to stating the fact that the property of the Communist Party consisted of party property, state property and ownerless property. The Constitutional Court began publishing materials from the “CPSU case” only in July 1996.

On December 1, 1992, the VII Congress of People's Deputies of Russia began. Zorkin took part in his work. He addressed the deputies, stating that all calls by government officials to dissolve the congress were unconstitutional and illegal. At the same time, he called on both supporters and opponents of the Congress to strictly implement constitutional norms.

On December 9-10, 1992, the conflict between the president and the congress escalated (Yeltsin addressed the people, calling for a referendum to determine which political course Russians trust: the presidential one, to transform society, or the congress, the Supreme Council and its chairman Ruslan Khasbulatova. Yeltsin sharply criticized the congress “for curtailing reforms”, and after the speech he defiantly left the meeting). Then Zorkin (on behalf of all members of the Constitutional Court) proposed immediately starting consultations between Yeltsin and Khasbulatov to develop a compromise and overcome the crisis. He committed to participate in consultations. At the same time, Zorkin emphasized that if a compromise is not reached, the Constitutional Court will raise the question of the constitutional responsibility of the country's leadership.

The congress supported the proposal of the head of the Constitutional Court. As a result of consultations between Yeltsin and Khasbulatov, organized on the initiative of Zorkin, a compromise resolution “On the stabilization of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation” was presented to the congress, which was supposed to stop the crisis of power in Russia. On December 12, 1992, the resolution was adopted by the congress. The consequences of the compromise were the resignation of the acting head of government Yegor Gaidar and the appointment of Viktor Chernomyrdin to the post of chairman of the cabinet of ministers, the freezing of amendments to the constitution changing the balance of the executive and legislative powers, as well as the decision to hold a referendum on the foundations of the new constitution in early 1993. . One of the amendments (namely to Article 121-6 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) played the role of a time bomb. This amendment provided for the immediate (even without the conclusion of the Constitutional Court) termination of the powers of the president if he tries to use his powers to change the national-state structure of the Russian Federation and dissolve or suspend the activities of any legally elected government bodies. However, it did not say who and by what procedure would declare the termination of the powers of the president (the congress returned to the issue of adopting this amendment the following year).

Since that time, the media began to reproach Zorkin for partiality, and his position began to be considered by Yeltsin’s supporters as pro-parliamentary, not pro-presidential (although Zorkin himself considered his views “centrist” and believed that for Russia “the ideal would be for citizens to move towards centrism from the flanks ").

On December 29, 1992, Zorkin became the first laureate of the National Consent award, established by the editorial office of the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda and the non-governmental committee National Consent - “for the civil act he committed on December 9-10, 1992” (the award committee was headed by the writer Sergei Zalygin).

On February 9-12, 1993, the Constitutional Court considered the so-called “Federal Tax Service case.” The social movement National Salvation Front was created on October 24, 1992 by representatives of several opposition political organizations in Russia. The creators of the Federal Tax Service called their main task the support of the Russian Unity bloc of parliamentary factions, which sought to counteract the “anti-constitutional” actions of the president and the executive branch headed by him, as well as the restoration of a single union state. The presidential decree to prevent the creation of the Front and the dissolution of its organizing committee was declared unconstitutional. The court regarded this decree as an intrusion of the executive branch into the sphere of judicial competence. After the decision in the “Federal Tax Service case”, accusations against the Constitutional Court of “political unreliability”, which began after the decision in the “CPSU case”, became more frequent in the radical-democratic press.

At the end of February 1993, Zorkin organized consultations between representatives of President Yeltsin and Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation Khasbulatov. He spoke out in favor of lifting the moratorium on holding a referendum, provided for by the compromise December resolution “On the stabilization of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation.”

At the beginning of March 1993, an extraordinary VIII Congress of People's Deputies took place. He canceled the December agreement between the authorities and decided to consider holding a referendum on April 11 inappropriate. On March 12, amendments to the Constitution frozen at the VII Congress came into effect, limiting the power of the president: both the amendment on the immediate termination of the powers of the head of state in the event of the president attempting to dissolve parliament, and the amendment concerning the rights of parliament to suspend the operation of presidential decrees. In fact, the parliament had the opportunity to completely neutralize for an indefinite period all legislative acts adopted by the president as part of the reforms - that is, Russia was turning into a parliamentary republic. And although Zorkin had previously objected to this, at the congress he sided with Yeltsin’s opponents, even if he refrained from direct accusations against him. In one of his statements, Zorkin almost verbatim repeated the words of Khasbulatov, who announced a “return to constitutionality” in the country. Zorkin, in particular, emphasized that “a bad constitution is better than none.”

On March 19, 1993, the Constitutional Court of Russia for the first time overturned the orders of the leadership of the Supreme Court. The judges immediately declared 27 orders of the head of the Russian parliament Ruslan Khasbulatov and his deputies unconstitutional (in particular, on the creation of a military security unit and the establishment of parliamentary control over the activities of newspapers). In addition, the court overturned the joint resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court and the government on fixing prices for milk, bread and other products: this resolution, according to the court members, was an attempt by the state to intervene in market processes. Thus, according to observers, Zorkin tried to restore his reputation as an independent and objective guardian of the rule of law, which suffered during the VIII Congress. According to the Kommersant newspaper, thanks to the repeal of the orders of the Chairman of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court managed to slightly increase its authority in society.

On March 20, Yeltsin signed a decree calling for April 25, 1993 a referendum on confidence in the President of the Russian Federation and at the same time voting on the draft of a new constitution and the draft law on elections to the federal parliament. The text of the decree included provisions that narrowed the legal possibilities for impeaching the president for violating the constitution. On the same day, speaking on television together with Prosecutor General Valentin Stepankov, Vice President Alexander Rutsky and Khasbulatov’s deputy Yuri Voronin, Zorkin sharply condemned President Yeltsin’s decree “On a special management regime until the crisis of power is overcome.”

Since that time, a campaign has been launched in the press to discredit Zorkin as an “accomplice of Khasbulatov.” It began with a message that the chairman of the Constitutional Court allegedly presented the president with the conclusion of the Constitutional Court directly at the funeral of Yeltsin’s mother.

On March 26, 1993, the IX Congress of People's Deputies opened, at which Khasbulatov presented a draft resolution on holding early simultaneous elections of the president and congress deputies, agreed upon at the meeting between Khasbulatov and Yeltsin. The deputies did not support the speaker, and Yeltsin and Khasbulatov remained in their posts. At the same time, as a result of the referendum held on April 25, 1993, the president was unable to obtain the consent of voters to change the deputy corps.

At the beginning of June 1993, the Constitutional Court made a number of decisions that did not suit the president: it confirmed the legality of calling elections for the head of the administration in the Chelyabinsk region (there the election was won by Pyotr Sumin, whose powers the president never recognized - as a result, until October 1993, two administrations operated in parallel in the region ); moved the decision on the legality of abolishing the post of President of Mordovia to the Constitutional Court of Mordovia (as a result, the popularly elected President of Mordovia Vasily Guslyannikov lost his position). At the same time, the state news agency ITAR-TASS refused to disseminate through its channels a number of official documents of the Constitutional Court, including a commentary on the legal decision on Mordovia.

That same summer, a number of members of the Constitutional Court, including Deputy Chairman Nikolai Vitruk, condemned Zorkin’s behavior, considering his statements on political issues inappropriate for his status as a judge. However, Zorkin did not change his position. At this time, the name Zorkin gained popularity, he began to be mentioned in the list of the most realistic contenders for the post of President of the Russian Federation.

On September 21, 1993, Yeltsin signed a decree “On stage-by-stage constitutional reform in the Russian Federation,” dissolving the Supreme Council and the Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation (decree number 1400). Before the election of a new parliament, the country was offered to live under the control of presidential decrees and government regulations, and the legislation of the Russian Federation was considered relevant only to the extent that did not contradict the decree. On the same day, Zorkin declared the decree unconstitutional and providing legal grounds for starting the procedure for removing Yeltsin from the post of president. On September 22, 1993, parliament declared Yeltsin's presidential powers terminated and adopted a resolution appointing Rutskoi as acting president.

Parliament supporters organized the defense of the White House. On October 3, Rutskoi called on them to begin an assault on the mayor's office and the building of the Ostankino television center. At the same time, Yegor Gaidar, who supported Yeltsin, appealed to Muscovites to go out into the streets and defend democracy. After a crowd led by General Albert Makashov stormed the mayor's office, Yeltsin signed a decree releasing Rutskoi from his duties as vice president and dismissing him from the army, as well as a decree introducing a state of emergency in Moscow. On the same day, Makashov demanded that the military personnel present in the Ostankino building lay down their arms. The building's security refused to comply, and supporters of the Supreme Council began shelling the television center. Return fire was opened from Ostankino. After reinforcements approached the defenders of the television center, Makashov gave the order to retreat to the White House. On October 4, by order of the president, troops and heavy equipment entered Moscow. After the shooting of the White House building from tank guns, Rutskoy, Khasbulatov and Makashov were arrested. According to some reports, a total of 60 people died during the confrontation between parliament and the president, including participants in the battle for Ostankino, police officers, journalists and bystanders.

On October 6, 1993, Zorkin resigned from the post of head of the Constitutional Court (under pressure from his colleagues and presidential structures), and his deputy Nikolai Vitruk began to perform the duties of the chairman of the Constitutional Court. At the same time, Zorkin himself told reporters that after the events of October 3-4, he “could not fulfill his duties under the current conditions.”

On December 1, 1993, Zorkin’s powers as an ordinary member of the court were also terminated - on charges of the judge’s participation in political activities. They were restored only at a meeting of the Constitutional Court on January 25, 1994 - after the adoption of a new constitution (adopted on December 12, 1993), which, according to Zorkin, gave the president too many rights and powers. Soon, by decree of President Yeltsin, the activities of the Constitutional Court were suspended for some time (resumed only in February 1995).

On the eve of the elections of the State Duma of the first convocation (December 1993), various electoral associations (Agrarian Party of Russia, Russian Christian Democratic Movement) invited Zorkin to run for deputy of the Federal Assembly on their federal lists. Zorkin refused these offers.

In mid-March 1994, Zorkin joined a group of deputies of the Federal Assembly, publicists and public figures who initiated the creation of a new patriotic movement “Consent in the Name of Russia”. In their “Address to the Citizens of Russia,” the organizers of the movement promised to “restore the power of Russian statehood, protect the national market and national capital, provide conditions for Russia’s breakthrough into a post-industrial future, stop crime, prevent unemployment and hunger, and give every citizen of the country a standard of living worthy of a human being.” . Zorkin signed this appeal and the movement's policy statement. In addition to him, the document was also signed by Alexander Rutskoy, Aman Tuleyev, Gennady Zyuganov, Pyotr Romanov, Stanislav Govorukhin and Nikita Mikhalkov.

Already on March 21, 1994, a working meeting of members of the Constitutional Court recommended that Zorkin resolve the issue of his stay on the court. In behind-the-scenes conversations, court members told the Kommersant newspaper that they “respect Valery Dmitrievich, but otherwise Yeltsin will not allow the court to begin work.” Then the acting chairman of the Constitutional Court, Vitruk, directly stated that Zorkin should resign. Sources of the publication claimed then that Zorkin himself was ready to leave the Constitutional Court and engage in political activities and, perhaps, stand as a candidate in the future presidential elections (in June of the same year, the media spoke of Zorkin’s nomination as a candidate as a finally decided matter).

The “Concord in the Name of Russia” movement, having achieved no success, virtually ceased to exist by October 1994. On February 14, 1995, Zorkin was included in the second chamber of the Constitutional Court. He became a member of the commission to improve the structure of the apparatus of the Constitutional Court and personnel.

In 1995, Zorkin was made several offers to join the federal list of the “Derzhava” movement headed by Rutskoy, but he again chose to remain a member of the Constitutional Court. A few months later, Zorkin’s wife, Tamara Vasilievna, and daughter Natalya were registered among the members of the initiative group that nominated Alexander Rutsky as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation.

In the summer of 1995, during the consideration of the “Chechen case” in the Constitutional Court (a number of parliamentarians demanded that all acts of the executive power adopted during the military operation in Chechnya be declared unconstitutional), Zorkin allowed himself, not agreeing with the verdict of the Constitutional Court, to express a dissenting opinion. Thus, if the court generally recognized all the decrees of the president and the resolutions of the Russian government on Chechnya as not contradicting the constitution (with the exception of decrees on the possibility of deportation from Chechnya of citizens officially residing in other regions of Russia, and the possibility of depriving journalists of the right to work in Chechnya without a court decision) , then Zorkin stated that the court did not examine enough facts to make a decision. Zorkin voted against the court ruling.

In the spring of 1996, an initiative group for nominating candidates for the presidency of Russia (according to other sources - two groups at once) approached Zorkina with a proposal to run for the post of head of state. The status of a judge of the Constitutional Court does not allow him to engage in any political activity, so Zorkin had to choose between participation in elections and judicial powers. Zorkin chose to remain a judge. In a statement sent to the editors of the RIA Novosti news agency, he explained that his nomination would “hinder the unification of constructive forces and does not meet the requirements of the moment.”

At the beginning of 1997, media reports appeared that Zorkin could again be elected to the post of Chairman of the Constitutional Court (the head of the Constitutional Court was supposed to be elected before February 24). The candidates for the chairperson of the Constitutional Court were Tamara Morshchakova (who at that time held the position of deputy chairman of the court and known for her democratic views), the representative of military justice Vladimir Strekozov and the judge of the Constitutional Court Marat Baglay, whom the press called “cautious and competent,” thereby contrasting him with the epithet “ impulsive" to Zorkin. As a result, it was Baglay who headed the court, and Zorkin remained an ordinary member of the Constitutional Court.

As Obshchaya Gazeta claimed, in order to make Baglay chairman of the Constitutional Court, Zorkin and Strekozov, whom the media called representatives of the “internal opposition,” were removed from the game in advance by Baglay’s supporters. According to tradition, only three candidates were included in the ballot, identified through a preliminary “soft” vote (when judges are free to cast their votes not to one, but to several of their colleagues). Supporters of Baglai’s election, according to the publication, preliminary stage They cast their votes for Morshchakova (who has repeatedly stated that she does not want to head the court) and judge Olga Khokhryakova, whom no one considered a serious competitor to Baglay. As a result, during the final voting, Baglay’s rivals received three votes between them, and their rivals were not considered at all.

For several years, Zorkin worked in court without becoming the object of close media attention. Thus, in 1998, the press mentioned him only as a speaker on the so-called “cash register case” (the Constitutional Court considered complaints from small entrepreneurs against the law on the use of cash registers, which imposed a fine of up to 350 minimum wages on a retail outlet for a failed check). In the report, Zorkin indicated that the punishment provided for by this law interferes with the freedom of entrepreneurial activity enshrined in the basic law of the country, and, therefore, is unconstitutional. The judge also made it clear to journalists that the Constitutional Court intends to take up the Customs Code, which provides for very harsh penalties for violating laws. In this regard, newspapers wrote that the Constitutional Court allegedly arrogated to itself the right not only to bring the current legislation into conformity with the constitution, but also to make it more humane. However, this scandal had no consequences either for the court or for Zorkin personally.

Moreover, on March 23, 2000, Acting President of Russia Vladimir Putin “for his services in strengthening the rule of law and many years of conscientious work” awarded Zorkin the title “Honored Lawyer of Russia.” However, Baglay again won the elections for the chairman of the Constitutional Court.

Only on February 21, 2003, Zorkin was re-elected chairman of the Constitutional Court by secret ballot. In total, three candidates applied for the post of chairman in these elections: Baglay, Zorkin and judge-secretary of the Constitutional Court Yuri Danilov. In the first round of voting, Zorkin and Baglay received 11 votes each, and Danilov 10. In the second round, Zorkin won, although most media again predicted victory for Baglay (he was already 72 years old, but the age limit of 70 years for judges had not yet come into force ) .

Upon taking office, Zorkin stated that he did not intend to make personnel revolutions in the Constitutional Court (indeed, even Baglay remained in his place - as an ordinary judge - until 2005). Zorkin did not change the course that the Constitutional Court had previously followed. Under him, the confrontation between the Supreme and Constitutional Courts also began. The reason for it was the question of which of the highest judicial bodies of the country has the right to overturn regulations government. The issue arose in the summer of 2002, but was resolved only in November 2003, and this time the Constitutional Court acted as the government desired (recognizing the cabinet resolution canceled by the Supreme Court as constitutional and indicating that the Supreme Court exceeded its competence).

On December 15, 2003, the Constitutional Court made a decision at the request of the legislative assembly of the Ivanovo region. Representatives of the regional Duma asked to check the constitutionality of the provisions of the regional law "On the municipal service of the Ivanovo region", which had previously been recognized by courts of general jurisdiction as contrary to the law. The Constitutional Court did not find any inconsistency with the constitution in the law and emphasized that the final decision on the issue can only rest with it. Thus, the court put itself in the position of first among formal equals, which again caused discontent in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (on the sidelines of the Supreme Court, doubts were generally expressed about the need for such an authority as the Constitutional Court).

In October 2004, the conflict between the Constitutional and Supreme Courts continued. His new stage began after Zorkin, in an interview with the daily newspaper Izvestia, publicly admitted the fact of bribery in the courts, agreeing with public opinion (67 percent of Russians, according to sociological surveys in 2004, considered the Russian judiciary to be corrupt). Zorkin stated that “bribery in courts has become one of the most powerful corruption markets in Russia.” The Presidium of the Supreme Court responded by demanding that the head of the Constitutional Court be held accountable. In the resolution adopted by the presidium, Zorkin was asked to immediately send to the court the research materials he referred to in his interview; information about all known facts of corruption in specific courts and in relation to specific judges; information about specific criminal cases that “collapsed” with the participation of corrupt judges. Information that the Chairman of the Constitutional Court sent such data to the Supreme Court did not appear in the press.

In October 2005, Zorkin attracted attention with a statement about the need to restore the institution of property confiscation in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The head of the Constitutional Court stated that the abolition of such a penalty was unlawful. The idea was supported by both the then Prosecutor General of Russia Vladimir Ustinov and the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev. In December of the same year, the government body headed by Zorkin, contrary to its ten-year-old resolution, recognized as legal the approval of candidates for the post of governor on the proposal of the president instead of direct elections (Russian President Vladimir Putin introduced the corresponding bill to the State Duma shortly after the hostage-taking in the North Ossetian city of Beslan. Shortly before its adoption of this decision, Zorkin prepared the ground for it, stating that “as society develops, the legal positions of the Constitutional Court can be clarified.” That is, the previous decision of the Constitutional Court remains valid, but cannot automatically be transferred to the “new situation.” “This is the law of movement of legal positions.” , - Zorkin argued his point of view, supporting it with reference to the experience of the most democratic countries

In January 2006, Zorkin made another unexpected statement. He told reporters that fines for tax violations should be the exception, not the rule, citing the fact that taxpayers are often held accountable for defects in the legislator's work rather than for their own fault.

In July 2006, the Constitutional Court confirmed the ban on election campaigning at the expense of personal funds citizens. Zorkin made an exception only for campaigning against all candidates.

In November of the same year, Zorkin again entered into a dispute with the Kremlin, speaking out against the transfer of the Constitutional Court to St. Petersburg (although the majority of judges agreed to the move). Zorkin insisted that such a decision undermines the “independence and prestige” of the court. In the end, the chairman of the Constitutional Court secured the right of the judges of the Constitutional Court to sit in both St. Petersburg and Moscow - the document approved by the State Duma provided for the “registration” of the Constitutional Court in St. Petersburg, but allowed the holding of mobile sessions and the creation of a representative office of the court in Moscow.

In February 2009, Zorkin was again elected chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. His victory, according to experts, was predictable, since “there is no real opposition to Mr. Zorkin among the judges or in federal bodies there is no power."

In the fall of the same year, a scandal broke out in the Constitutional Court: Constitutional Court judge Vladimir Yaroslavtsev gave an interview to the Spanish newspaper El Pais. In it, he criticized the Russian judicial system and, in particular, the Constitutional Court’s decision to refuse to consider the journalist’s complaint

Delete

• ((fb))

• Material added to “Favorites”

  Remove material from Favorites?

  Delete

  Material removed from Favorites

  Denis Abramov / Vedomosti

  Federation Council on Wednesday reappointed Valery Zorkin, who will turn 75 on February 18, as Chairman of the Constitutional Court (CC). This is already his sixth term in this post - unlike the president, there are no restrictions on the number of members for the chairman of the Constitutional Court. In addition, in 2010, then-President Dmitry Medvedev initiated amendments to the law on the Constitutional Court, which gave its head the right to hold this position indefinitely (for other judges of the Constitutional Court the age limit is set at 70 years). Experts then argued that the changes were made specifically for Zorkin, who, according to the old rules, was supposed to resign in February 2013.

  From rebel to loyalist

  Zorkin became the first chairman of the Constitutional Court after its creation in 1991: he was elected to this position by the judges themselves by secret ballot and for an unlimited term. However, as a result of a confrontation with President Boris Yeltsin, Zorkin was forced to resign from the post of chairman in October 1993 and worked for ten years as an ordinary judge at the Constitutional Court. He received a new promotion under Vladimir Putin in February 2003 (by that time the term of chairmanship was limited to three years). According to the law in force at that time, the election of the chairman was still the prerogative of the judges themselves, and Zorkin’s return came as a complete surprise to the Kremlin. According to a lawyer who worked for many years in the Constitutional Court, this choice was dictated by the lack of an alternative: Marat Baglay, who presided over the court from 1997 to 2003, by that time was already categorically dissatisfied with many of his colleagues.

  “I remember well the panic in the presidential administration when, unexpectedly for them, Zorkin was elected chairman of the court in 2003,” recalls political scientist Gleb Pavlovsky, who collaborated with the Kremlin in those years. - It was a shock. For some time they even considered the question of somehow influencing this, changing it, and talked with Zorkin. But then we decided not to touch anything.” After 1993, Zorkin had a reputation as a rebel, says Pavlovsky: “In December 1993, Zorkin was supposed to come to us for a demonstration of the anti-Yeltsin movement in defense of freedom and human rights. This was a serious choice for him, because by attending the demonstration he was violating the requirement for a constitutional judge not to engage in political activities. Zorkin was then perceived as the banner of the parliamentary opposition, the struggle for the old Constitution. By coming to the demonstration, he created for himself an easy opportunity for resignation, which many really wanted. But halfway there he called me and said that he had thought about it and would not come. This was apparently a moment of choice for him - and he remained in the Constitutional Court.” After that, Zorkin was not heard from for 10 years - and suddenly he became the chairman of the Constitutional Court, Pavlovsky continues: “This was unpleasant news for the leadership of the presidential administration. But they still left him, because if they interfered with the appointment, it would have been a huge scandal. On the other hand, when we talked with Zorkin and found out what he was breathing, they apparently realized that he wouldn’t create problems - and they calmed down.”

  After this, the judges re-elected Zorkin as head of the Constitutional Court twice more (in 2006 and 2009), but then lost this right: since 2009, the president received the authority to nominate a candidate for the chairman of the Constitutional Court for approval by the Federation Council (for a six-year term). However, even this did not prevent the head of the Constitutional Court, who began his activities with an uncompromising confrontation with the Kremlin, from being reappointed twice more - in 2012 and 2018.

  Many experts tend to attribute the reason for Zorkin’s political longevity to his loyalty.

  The authorities are satisfied with the current position of the Constitutional Court, its place and role in the political system, the essence of which boils down to the fact that the court does not interfere with the authorities, member of the Human Rights Council under the President Pavel Chikov is convinced. Zorkin and in the 1990s. was not an opponent of the authorities, says the political scientist, assistant to President Yeltsin in 1994-1997. Georgy Satarov: “The situation was complex, conflicting, there were different institutions of power, and he sided with the one that, as it seemed to him, should win.”

  Zorkin himself has always categorically rejected suspicions that the Constitutional Court makes decisions at the behest of the authorities and is “under the heel of the Kremlin.” “It seems to me that these people who talk about this are simply ridiculous,” he said in 2016 at an international conference in St. Petersburg. “My conscience is clear - I have never received instructions from the president, with the exception of one time, in 1993, when President Yeltsin called and said: “What are you allowing yourself? You oppose the president, and there is a reactionary parliament!” - Zorkin recalled. The Constitutional Court is indeed forced to “show some reasonable restraint” in protecting human rights, he admitted, but this is due to the need to take into account the reality and capabilities of the state.

  Nevertheless, the difference in the position of the Constitutional Court in relation to the Kremlin before 1993 and after 2003 is quite obvious, which is clearly visible in the most high-profile cases of the Constitutional Court.

  In the early 1990s. the most high-profile decisions of the Constitutional Court had a pronounced anti-Kremlin character. Thus, at the beginning of 1992, the Constitutional Court declared Yeltsin’s decree on the creation of a unified Ministry of Security and Internal Affairs unconstitutional - and the Kremlin had to abandon this idea. In November 1992, the Constitutional Court did not allow Yeltsin to complete the defeat of the CPSU, giving its primary cells the right to resume party activities - and as a result, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation was created, which became a serious opposition force that made life difficult for the Kremlin throughout the 1990s. And finally, in 1993, the Constitutional Court twice intervened in the confrontation between the Kremlin and the Supreme Council, taking the side of the deputies. In March, judges declared the president's decree on a special order of government unconstitutional, after which the Kremlin compromised and agreed to hold a referendum on confidence in the president and parliament. And in September 1993, the Constitutional Court recognized Yeltsin’s decree on the dissolution of the Supreme Council as unconstitutional: for the deputies this ended in the shooting of the White House, for the Constitutional Court - the suspension of activities, and for Zorkin himself - in resignation.

  After 2003, the Constitutional Court, on the contrary, as a rule, sided with the Kremlin. In particular, the court confirmed the constitutionality of the law abolishing direct gubernatorial elections and new rules for organizing rallies (as well as draconian fines for violating them), recognized the agreement on the annexation of Crimea as consistent with the Constitution, as well as the provisions of the law “On non-profit organizations”, which introduced the concept of an NPO performing the functions of a foreign agent. In addition, the Constitutional Court allowed Russia not to implement the decisions of the ECHR if contradictions were identified between them and the Constitution (the consequence of which was, for example, the refusal to pay about 2 billion euros to the former shareholders of Yukos according to the decision of the ECHR), and at the beginning of 2018 it confirmed the legality of the non-admission of Alexei Navalny for the presidential elections.

  Zorkin’s regular public appearances also had considerable resonance. Thus, shortly before the decision of the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the appointment of governors (which contradicted the resolution of the Constitutional Court itself in 1996), he stated that the court’s interpretation of the Constitution may change depending on historical and political circumstances. And in an article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta dated September 26, 2014, Zorkin actually gave a positive assessment of serfdom, pointing out that its abolition in 1861 destroyed the already noticeably weakened connection between the two main social classes of the nation by that time. “For all the costs of serfdom, it was precisely it that was the main bond holding the internal unity of the nation,” argued Zorkin.

  Both the Constitutional Court and Zorkin himself have changed, says Vadim Solovyov, head of the legal service of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation: the court has transformed into a body of state power and has become part of the nomenklatura, part of the party in power. The Constitutional Court interprets the Constitution so that its interpretation coincides with the position of the authorities; the Constitutional Court never became an independent element and simply fit into the system, says the communist. “Zorkin gradually became a politician from a talented lawyer - all decisions of the Constitutional Court are largely more political than legal. Policy is put into legal form. One of the latest examples is our appeals regarding the law on rallies,” recalls Solovyov.

  Faithful lawyer

  Nevertheless, most people who are personally acquainted with Zorkin insist that he is a man who is unconditionally true to his convictions and sincere in his aspirations.

  “Valery Dmitrievich is absolutely consistent in his views, beliefs and activities as a judge and chairman of the Constitutional Court,” assures Boris Ebzeev, a retired judge of the Constitutional Court and now a member of the Central Election Commission.

  “He is a very integral person,” agrees Chairman of the Human Rights Council Mikhail Fedotov. - I clearly understood this back when he was my teacher at the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University and gave me a “failure” in the history of political doctrines. I did not attend his lectures very carefully, believing that the pre-revolutionary textbooks on the history of the philosophy of law, which were abundant in the family library, would be enough for me. But it turned out that this was not the case.” As it turned out, Zorkin was very careful about attendance at his lectures, says Fedotov: “And, noticing my uncertainty on the issue of Chernyshevsky’s political and legal views (naturally, such an author was not even mentioned in the old textbooks), he decisively sent me to retake.”

  By 1990, Zorkin had made a fairly successful academic career. After graduating from Moscow State University in 1964 with a degree in jurisprudence, he remained there to teach, he reports official biography. In 1967, the future chairman of the Constitutional Court defended his Ph.D. thesis (it was dedicated to the works of the Russian legal scholar Boris Chicherin) and became an associate professor. In 1976, he tried to defend his doctoral dissertation on criticism of the positivist theory of law (it underlay the practice of the USSR prosecutor in 1935-1939 Andrei Vyshinsky and his followers), but in the dissertation council of Moscow State University he lacked one vote - and the academic title of Zorkin I didn't receive it then. After this, he left the university and went to work at the Institute of State and Law, where in 1978 he successfully defended his doctoral dissertation. Until 1986, he was a professor at the Department of Constitutional Law at the Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, then moved to the Higher Legal Correspondence School of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. And in 1990, Zorkin headed a group of experts of the Constitutional Commission at the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, which worked on a new text of the Basic Law of the country.

  The fact that the model of a super-presidential republic was eventually adopted in Russia was Zorkin’s considerable merit, recalls Russian politician and one of the authors of the Constitution Viktor Sheinis (in 1993-1994 - deputy chairman of the Commission for Legislative Proposals under the President): “I then had to deal with There is a dispute about how the role and powers of the president should be presented in the draft Constitution. A staunch supporter of a presidential republic, Zorkin insisted that only it could provide the necessary political stability in Russia and with it the balance of power. He and his supporters decisively rejected not only a parliamentary, but also a semi-presidential republic on the French model. Zorkin was then able to convince the majority of the drafters of the Constitution of the validity of his approach, and the alternative option – a government responsible to parliament – ​​was rejected.”

  From Moscow to St. Petersburg

  In December 2005, Vladimir Putin supported the idea of ​​the Governor of St. Petersburg, Valentina Matvienko, to move the CS to the Northern capital. The corresponding bill was submitted to the State Duma by the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg and adopted at the end of 2007. The Constitutional Court judges perceived it “with bewilderment and indignation,” retired Constitutional Court judge Tamara Morshchakova told the media, since no one asked their opinion. Valery Zorkin commented on this topic with restraint, pointing out that the Constitutional Court may lose qualified personnel. But the secretariat of the Constitutional Court sent a very sharp letter to the Duma, warning that the move could “result in a violation of the stability of constitutional justice.” Nevertheless, on May 27, 2008, the first meeting of the Constitutional Court was held in the Senate building in St. Petersburg (photo below). An apartment building was built for court staff, and a cottage community was built for judges on Krestovsky Island (photo above).

  In October 1991, at the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, at the proposal of the deputy group "Communists for Democracy", Zorkin was elected a member of the Constitutional Court, and at the very first meeting of the Constitutional Court he became its chairman.

  The moment of truth for Zorkin came at the height of the political crisis in 1993, Sheinis recalls: he saw a violation of the Constitution by only one side of the conflict and hastily passed a decision in the Constitutional Court, which seriously complicated overcoming a deadly situation. “Having left the legal field for the political field, he failed to pave the way to pacification,” Sheinis believes.

  The first serious escalation of the confrontation between the executive and legislative powers occurred on March 20, 1993, when Yeltsin made a televised address to the people, in which he announced the suspension of the Constitution and the introduction of a “special order of governance” of the country. Two hours later, Zorkin, speaking on television together with Vice President Alexander Rutsky, called the president’s actions unconstitutional, and on March 23, the Constitutional Court approved a conclusion on this issue, seeing Yeltsin’s actions as grounds for removing him from office.

  According to some judges of the Constitutional Court, having made his personal opinion public then, Zorkin lost the right to take part in court hearings on this issue. In addition, the subject of consideration should have been the written text of the decree, and not Yeltsin’s oral statement (it is believed that in fact the decree was signed no earlier than March 22 and was very different in content from what was announced by the president on television). This served as the basis for accusing the Constitutional Court of political activity.

  “I am deeply convinced that the Constitutional Court acted within absolute legal frameworks during this difficult period of social cataclysm,” Ebzeev objects. - And when they say that he did not have the text of the decree, this is nonsense, we had this text in our hands. And it was in no way consistent with the Constitution in force at that moment, or with those universal principles of constitutionalism that should have guided any government - even in that historical period.”

  Loyalty to principles

  In 1993, according to Ebzeev, the Constitutional Court not only remained faithful to the Constitution in force at that time (although “there will definitely be people who will say that it was outdated, socialist and did not meet international standards,” he stipulates), but also followed the main idea - the principle of constitutionalism. “Zorkin had an absolutely clear feeling that History had chosen him to stand in the way of unconstitutional actions,” agrees Fedotov, who at that moment was on the opposite side of the barricades.

  In 1993, the Constitutional Court as an institution had enormous influence, says Pavlovsky: then it really was the power that it should be according to the Constitution - and the Kremlin retreated more than once. There was an attempt by Yeltsin to introduce a semi-emergency situation in the country, and Zorkin courageously prevented this, the expert recalls. Somewhere he may have gone beyond the established limits - for example, when he gave an interview - but then it was a question of the court’s decision, and not of Zorkin, Pavlovsky emphasizes.

  “I believe that the Constitutional Court in that historical period gave some chance to the Russian authorities,” Ebzeev argues. - Unfortunately, we did not take advantage of this chance, and therefore, in September 1993, another decree on gradual constitutional reform followed. Well, then the events of October 3-4, 1993 happened, which I personally perceive as some kind of act of civil war.”

  On October 6, 1993, Zorkin wrote a letter of resignation. By that time, Yeltsin already had a draft decree on the dissolution of the Constitutional Court, which would have been signed if Zorkin refused to leave. Nevertheless, at the Constitutional Court meeting on October 5, eight of the 12 judges recommended that their chairman remain in office.

  “In 1993, Zorkin was a very extraordinary and intelligent person with a strong sense of entitlement, and there was nothing like what we now read with horror in his articles,” notes Pavlovsky. - I don't know where it came from. He was, perhaps, even the ideal chairman of the Constitutional Court. But he accepted his defeat in 1993 and apparently decided not to tempt fate anymore.”

  That's what Zorkin said

  “The Constitutional Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, of course, interprets its spirit in relation to the times. This allows him to change his legal positions. But there are certain restrictions. The Constitutional Court cannot be guided by the pure letter of the Constitution and must find its spirit.”
  October 2004, speech at the VII International Forum on Constitutional Justice

  “We all know how everything that led to the tragedy in February 1917 began. It all started with little things. The soldiers, entering the church, stopped crossing themselves, did not put out their cigarettes, etc. The authority of the officers fell, and that same negativism accumulated, which at first is only fraught with internal rejection. And then this internal rejection turned into the collapse of all institutions, all systems of social life.”
  April 2013, article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta

  “Old democracies, inspired by the ideas of liberalism, are very actively moving towards the protection of various kinds of minorities and often very resolutely ignore the objections of their citizens who are concerned about the consequences of such decisions.”
  October 2013, report at an international conference in Belgrade

  “[The abolition of serfdom] destroyed the already noticeably weakened connection between the two main social classes of the nation - the nobility and peasants. Despite all the costs of serfdom, it was precisely this that was the main bond holding the internal unity of the nation.”
  September 2014, article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta

  “Russia’s participation in international agreements and conventions only means that Russia voluntarily assumes the obligations listed in these international documents. And reserves the sovereign right of final decisions in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the event controversial issues or legal conflicts."
  May 2015, lecture at the International Legal Forum in St. Petersburg

  “The danger of lawlessness is growing, bringing to mind the words of the Holy Apostle Paul, who at the dawn of the era warned that the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.<...>One cannot but be alarmed by the trends of modern and, above all, Western European legal development, which reveal a discrepancy with those moral norms of society that are rooted in Christian traditions.<...>I mean such legislative innovations that declare non-traditional behavior patterns of sexual and gender minorities as a legal norm.”
  November 2016, speech at the World Russian People's Council

  “The protection of human rights should not undermine the moral foundations of society and destroy its religious identity. Ensuring the rights of citizens should not pose a threat to state sovereignty. And finally, the defense of human dignity should not lead to the abandonment of those moral universals on which humanity was once formed and which until now have allowed it to protect itself from self-destruction.”
  May 2017, lecture at the VII St. Petersburg International Legal Forum

  In the 1990s. The Constitutional Court had a much greater influence, because much of the legislation was from Soviet times and it was necessary to get rid of all this, says the chairman of the State Duma Committee on Legislation, Pavel Krasheninnikov, who held the position in the late 1990s. post of Minister of Justice: “In 1998, half of the acts in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation contradicted the Constitution, it was mining work. From this point of view, the CC then worked “on the front lines.” Now this is a different job - setting up legislation, many questions have come from outside: what to do with international treaties, how the Constitution should comply with them, and this discussion continues.”

  It is impossible to say that after Zorkin returned to the post of chairman of the Constitutional Court, the court did not make decisions that were objectionable to the authorities, Fedotov believes. For example, in 2003, when the Constitutional Court was considering a complaint from three journalists related to election campaigning, parliament had already adopted amendments that made it possible to suspend media publications for repeated violations of campaigning rules, he recalls: “And this was the real muzzle of the media: election commissions in the regions They’ve already started giving out warnings left and right.” It was at this moment that Fedotov, as one of the authors of the law on the media, received an invitation from Zorkin to speak at the Constitutional Court as an expert, says the chairman of the HRC: “And I was incredibly happy when I listened to the resolution of the Constitutional Court and found in it a reflection of the position expressed in my expert opinion " Although, for example, Fedotov “still cannot agree” with the decision of the Constitutional Court in the case of “foreign agents.”

Valery Dmitrievich Zorkin(born February 18, 1943, Konstantinovka, Oktyabrsky district of Primorsky Krai) - Russian lawyer, judge and chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in 1991-1993. and since 2003, professor, Doctor of Law (1978), Honored Lawyer of the Russian Federation (2000).

Biography

Born into a military family. Later his family moved to Moscow.

Education

Graduated from the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University in 1964. After graduating from graduate school, he was a teacher at the Law Faculty of Moscow State University. In 1967, he defended his dissertation at Moscow State University for the degree of Candidate of Legal Sciences on the topic “B. N. Chicherin’s views on the state and law,” after which he continued teaching at Moscow State University as an assistant professor.

From 1977 to 1979 he worked at the Institute of State and Law of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and in 1978 defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic “Positivist theory of law in Russia (historical-critical research).” The dissertation was devoted to criticism of the positivist theory of law, which underlay the practice of the former USSR prosecutor (1935-39) Andrei Vyshinsky and his followers.

Teaching activities

In 1964-1967 he worked at the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University as a senior lecturer, in 1967-1979 - as an associate professor.

From 1980 to 1986 - Professor of the Department of Constitutional Law and Theory of State and Law of the Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR. Since 1986 - professor at the Higher Law Correspondence School of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Political activity

In 1970 he joined the CPSU (he remained a member of the Communist Party until its ban on November 6, 1991).

In March 1990, he ran for people's deputies of the RSFSR in the Kalinin district of Moscow, taking third place after the “democrat” Mikhail Bocharov and the commander of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, General Yuri Shatalov.

In the early 1990s, an expert at the Constitutional Commission of the RSFSR participated in the preparation of the draft Constitution of Russia.

On October 29, 1991, at the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, at the proposal of the deputy group "Communists for Democracy", he was elected a member of the Constitutional Court of Russia, and at the first meeting he became its chairman.

Activities in the Constitutional Court

The first decision of the Constitutional Court was to recognize President Yeltsin’s decree on the merger of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and state security agencies (AFB RSFSR) in January 1992 as unconstitutional.

On March 13, 1992, the Constitutional Court of the RSFSR, headed by Valery Zorkin, declared the referendum on the sovereignty of the republic planned in Tatarstan, as well as some parts of the Declaration on State Sovereignty of the Republic of Tatarstan of August 30, 1990, unconstitutional. Despite this, a referendum in Tatarstan was held on March 21, 1992.

Another high-profile case was the “CPSU case.” On May 26, 1992, communist deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation submitted to the court the issue of the legality of Yeltsin’s decrees on the ban on the CPSU and the Communist Party of the RSFSR of August 23 and November 6, 1991. In response to this, “democratic” deputies led by Oleg Rumyantsev raised the question of the constitutionality of the CPSU. On November 30, 1992, the case was over and certain provisions of Yeltsin's decrees were declared unconstitutional. This decision allowed the grassroots structures of the Communist Party of the RSFSR to recreate the central leadership of the party.

During the period of the constitutional crisis of 1992-1993, he actively participated in negotiations between representatives of the branches of government. After the October events of 1993, on October 6, under pressure, he resigned from the post of chairman, retaining his powers as a judge. I. o. His deputy, Nikolai Vitruk, became the chairman of the Constitutional Court. On December 1, 1993, his powers were terminated “for political activities” and as a judge of the Constitutional Court and were restored only at the meeting of the Constitutional Court on January 25, 1994.

In 2004, he supported the decision of Russian President Vladimir Putin to abolish direct elections of heads of constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

On February 21, 2006, and then on February 20, 2009, he was re-elected Chairman of the Constitutional Court. On February 22, 2012, Valery Zorkin became Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation for the fifth time.

While the attention of football fans is focused on the World Cup taking place in Russia, sad news came from Perm. One of the most colorful and original teams of the Russian football premier league- Perm "Amkar" - ceased to exist. Club President Gennady Shilov in an interview with Sport Express, he said that in the new season the team will not enter competitions in any of the professional leagues: “We don’t have funding, what’s the point of accumulating debts?”

The fact that the team would not play in the RFPL in the 2018/2019 season became clear a week earlier, when the Russian Football Union revoked the team’s license allowing it to play in top division. There remained a timid hope that the team would be able to survive in the lower leagues, like a number of well-known teams that had gone through this path before. Alas, hopes were not justified.

In Soviet times in Perm there was football team"Zvezda", founded back in 1932. The club representing the Sverdlov Perm Engine Plant lacked stars from the sky. Zvezda's best achievement was 6th place in the USSR Championship among First League teams (in 1972 and 1976). In the early nineties, Zvezda managed to take third place in the First League of the Russian Championship. However, the team soon ran out of funding and the club where the famous Russian player took his first steps in football coach Pavel Sadyrin, ceased to exist.

Amkar arose in Perm as a competitor to Zvezda. In 1993, the team was created with the support of the Perm OJSC Mineral Fertilizers. The name “Amkar” comes from a combination of parts of the words “ammonia” and “urea”: these two substances were the main products of the enterprise.

In Perm, experienced fans were hostile to Amkar, who believed new team"grave digger" of "Star". This was partly true: in any case, the leading players of Zvezda actually moved to the more financially prosperous Amkar.

The Cup final, the fight for the championship and the match in London: the best year in the history of Amkar

Over time, however, Amkar received the love of Perm viewers. The first step towards it was taken in 1998, when in a crowded stadium in Perm Amkar sensationally beat the best team countries, Moscow "Spartak" - 1:0.

In 2003, Amkar took 1st place in the first division, breaking into the elite of Russian football.

The 2008 season was the best in the history of Amkar. Permians under the leadership Miodrag Bozovic not only joined the fight for medals, but even aimed for 1st place. As a result, Amkar finished fourth. The events in the Russian Cup were even more dramatic, where the Perm team met CSKA in the final. Bozovic's team led with a score of 2:0, but the army team was able to come back, and in the penalty shootout everything was decided by a brilliant game CSKA goalkeeper Igor Akinfeev.

Fourth place in the Russian Championship allowed Amkar to play in the Europa League. The team's opponent was the English Fulham. Having lost in London with a score of 1:3, the Perm team won at home with a score of 1:0. And even though Amkar dropped out of the tournament based on the sum of the two meetings, these matches remained a memorable page in the history of Perm football.

Spartak and Amkar players, 2008. Photo: RIA Novosti / Vladimir Fedorenko

Survival as fate

hold on high level the team failed. Serious problems with financing began, and in December 2010, a message appeared on the official website of Amkar about a voluntary transfer to the First League due to the difficult financial situation in the club.

Fan actions and open letters to various authorities, including the President of Russia, had an effect: money was found for the team, and Amkar remained in the Premier League.

The team's budget was modest, the Perm team for the most part fought for survival, but sometimes Amkar took points from the giants.

People in Perm are used to financial difficulties, but as the 2017/2018 season progressed, they began to take on a fatal nature. Several times the conversation was raised that Amkar would not finish the season. The Permians played their home match against Lokomotiv in Moscow: the railway workers paid all expenses for Amkar. While journalists and experts were outraged by this situation, the Perm team sensationally won with a score of 2:1.

As a result, Amkar finished in the zone play-offs, but managed to surpass FC Tambov and retained the right to play in the Premier League.

Will Zvezda be returned to Perm?

What was achieved in wrestling, it didn’t work out financially. A quarter of a century after its creation, FC Amkar ceases to exist.

And the authorities Perm region Now they are going to revive Zvezda after 20 years of oblivion. The team is planning to enter the lower division. The new team will not have debts amounting to hundreds of millions of rubles, which dragged Amkar to the bottom. And the costs for Zvezda in the lower division will be significantly lower than in the RFPL.

Thus, Perm Amkar became the second Premier League team to cease to exist in 2018. Previously, a similar fate befell the Russian Cup winner Tosno. As in the case of Amkar, Tosno simply ran out of funding.